So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

It did have a 6 inch lift, but can you imagine what would have been left of
me if I had of been in a Toyota Tercel or Ford Festiva? YUCK! Bring out the
brooms and sweep the leftovers off the road!

Patrick

wrote in message
ups.com...
Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )

My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
guess here

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
Sport Pilot wrote:

Friedrich,
I think you must be tinkning of SUV's built in the 80's or somewhere
else. The modern SUV has plenty of crush built in the design. I know
thae Mercedes Benz led in this area, but Crylsler (whom Mercedes merged
with) and others were not far behind. Many crash tests indicate that
on many American SUV's, some extra stifness is still needed around the
passenger compartment.

there certainly are improvements and I was thinking about trucks more
than SUVs to be honest. Especially the more modern types built upon
passenger car type undercarriage probably are pretty much up to
passenger car standards in crashworthyness as well, point taken. About
those built on truck platforms I'm not so sure.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

About those built on truck platforms I'm not so sure.

Ahh, the true working truck. They wouldn't sell at all if they
couldn't haul the required load. That's going to make it stiff. I
suspect that making those crash worthy would take a lot of special
design.

wrote:
Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )

My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
guess here

Maybe it was a pimped Caddy riding high on it's airbags?

Let's just say it was probably in the process of being "pimped". In any
case it was a huge old caddy that went to the junk pile!

Patrick

"Sport Pilot" wrote in message
ups.com...


wrote:
Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )

My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
guess here

Maybe it was a pimped Caddy riding high on it's airbags?

Cub Driver wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


Hydrogen is a joke.


Until it catches fire!

The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.

Actually, gasoline is pretty much as dangerous as hydrogen. And it is
pretty much generally accepted now that the issue with the Hindenberg
wasn't the hydrogen inside the envelope but rather the highly flammable
coating on the outside of the envelope. Better do some more research...

Matt

Sport Pilot wrote:

Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
if it is of fairly recent make.


When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
from its own inertia, so the differance between a large vehicle and a
small one is not that great. But when a small vehicle hits a large
vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
occupants.


Actually, when hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the
occupants from THEIR inertia, not that of the vehicle. Larger vehicles
are generally better in this case as you say, but not because of their
greater weight, but because the occupants are sitting farther from the
point of impact and thus have a greater distance over which to dissipate
their energy which results in lower rates of deceleration.

Matt

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:46:05 GMT, Repo Man wrote:

Did you manage to comprehend ANYTHING I wrote?

I doubt that he did, because it was garbage. Ahistorical garbage.
Mindless, paranoid garbage.

As I mentioned, he is really into Paul Krugman.

He is most likely referring to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/op...11krugman.html

Here is a devastating rebuttal:
http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0507120940.asp

In fact, his rambling about "Econ 101" indicates he hasn't the slightest
clue what he's talking about and is merely parroting what Krugman (batting
average about .068) babbles about. Krugman has been shown to flat out make
up crap off the top of his head and many swallow it hook, line, and sinker.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kC9Fe.7146$eg4.3217@trndny01...
Repo Man wrote:

I can see you disagreed with it. But maybe your child could do a better
job explaining why.

Ah! So you were writing for ignorant children. That explains it.

RM writes as though he was an ignorant child and it shows. He can make nine
points, all of them have no correlation, and them come off as a pompous boob
that is totally clueless.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:26:38 GMT, Jose
wrote:

The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.

No. The world's oddest Debonair pilot.

Probably more than one of the locals would agree with that. :-))


How correct would they be? :~(

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:27:31 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:26:38 GMT, Jose
wrote:

The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.

No. The world's oddest Debonair pilot.

Probably more than one of the locals would agree with that. :-))


How correct would they be? :~(

Considering I have the only Deb at the airport...
I'm also the best they have.:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com